Still waiting for "Vote Kick" option

[Fifield]

6 hours ago, Brasten said:

Automated criteria could include existing AFK

There's already an AFK system in the game.  It doesn't work very well.

DE have already said they won't do this.  I must have played 2000 missions and never felt the need for votekick.  Kicking from lobby however -- that's maybe worth implementing.

[DuskLegendary]

46 minutes ago, SortaRandom said:

AFK people are a problem.

Votekick abuse is a problem.

 

Solution: Votekick prompts only appear after a player has been AFK for a certain amount of time.

There you go. Now 99% of AFK players won't get away with zero-effort leeching, and 100% of player kicks will be because they were AFK against their team's will.

Now this is an idea that I can get behind. This way, there's no trolling or bullying going on, and AFK people that expect some sort of reward for leeching will not get any. I mean, if you're going AFK in the middle of the match, you should kindly log off and go take care of what needs to be taken care of anyways, so this idea, I actually like and have no problem with whatsoever. 

[Gruppy]

1 hour ago, SortaRandom said:

Solution: Votekick prompts only appear after a player has been AFK for a certain amount of time.

There you go. Now 99% of AFK players won't get away with zero-effort leeching, and 100% of player kicks will be because they were AFK against their team's will.

This would be perfect although there would be people that move around just enough to avoid the prompt so it would need to also take into consideration if they are actually damaging any enemies. 

[Radjehuty]

I mentioned something on a similar topic already, but I do want a way to vote-kick people that are abusive, but that can NOT be done until you can actually DEFINE what exactly is abusive outside the obvious idling, harassment, etc. We need a way that informs us of what kind of squad we're creating or joining. Something as simple as a squad "title" where you choose between the available open squads based on what the host named it. Something like "20 minute survival" or "only doing 1 extractor credit farm" etc. It's not fair that people seem to have individual ideas about what is common courtesy when they join a public squad and assume that it's to play a certain way and everyone else who has a different assumption are trolls. I even caught myself getting mad at certain people who wanted to leave a mission early because I thought it was common courtesy to create private squads if they just want to farm 1 extractor on Hieracon for credit farming while I wanted help getting 20 extractors. Yes there is some logic, I believe, to this, but in reality it was a false and unfair assumption that people should all be on the same page. There needs to be a better way public squads are formed so that people who want to join them are informed of the intentions of that squad and only THEN can it be determined that person is truly a troll and has a basis to use a vote-kick system. It currently makes no sense to vote-kick someone because they wanted to leave early and had no idea about the kind of squad they got themselves in to.

[Vomitous]

14 hours ago, Gruppenfuhrer said:

This would be perfect although there would be people that move around just enough to avoid the prompt so it would need to also take into consideration if they are actually damaging any enemies. 

I always worry about the side effects of this kind of 'fix'.. in many other threads I've read the 'just fail the mission for them if they haven't done any damage in 10 minutes' suggestions. I think about all the times I'm looking for the last syndicate seals or orokin caches or whatever and there are no enemies left..

[blaes]

No vote kick please. It can generally be abused way too easily, and if you try to put restrictions on it, it will either become inefficient or restrictions will be useless.

 

There is a much better way to deal with afkers/trolls and such :

Give us the ability to initiate a squad split using the host migration system. This would include the possibility to invite people from the squad to move along with you.

For instance, you (A) are playing with B, C and D. For whatever reason you don't want to play with C anymore, you initiate a squad split and invite-prompt B and D to follow you. B is a friend of C and refuse, D follows you. Squad is split in 2 new squads, you and D in one and B and C in the other. Host migrations ensues as necessary for people to end this.

Other scenario : you started a high level excavation to farm credits, two other people join later on but they want to do a long run and refuse to quit after first extractor. You initiate a squad-split, don't invite anyone, the clients get a host migration and can continue their game for as long as they want and you can extract without wasting time nor loosing any (potentially rare) loot you had.

[(PSN)meeeone]

23 hours ago, (PS4)horridhal said:

The issue here is that herd mentality that kicks in for players.  People vote yes on kick votes for absolutely no reason other than to be part of the kicking group.  There is also the fear that if you vote no, the next vote will target you and you might not be so lucky.

I don't want to be kicked by people because they feel my colors look dumb.  Or I'm better than them.  Or worse than them.  Or any other million ridiculous reasons I could list that I've seen given as reasons for kicks.

It's cool that you think it wouldn't be abused but for anyone who has played a game with a kick system, your assurances aren't assuring.  

Again, kick systems are abused in every game they exist in.  It ALWAYS happens.  IN a game like Warframe, where missions can be completed alone within a few minutes of starting, the solution to your problem exists naturally.  Complete the mission and ignore the person causing the problem, then move on.  Or just ignore them and abort the mission to create a new one. 

Both those solutions fix your problem without negatively impacting other player's gameplay in any way.

Easier said then done.

"Just ignore them."

Yeah,say that on a level where a single person keeps pushing the elevator button to trap the team.

Or they take the mobile defense hack module and refuse to work with the team.

21 hours ago, DuskLegendary said:

I do not see your point, because 3 capable people should be more than enough to carry a single person if push comes to shove, unless of course you're playing very high level content. 

You seem to be missing the point of Draco my friend. Draco is to level your low level or unranked gear and if you have it maxed out, to gain focus. While a lot of people do go there to gain focus, many many more simply do go to level their unranked gear. If not, what is the point of Draco at all? We want maxed out gear so we can actually contribute to serious gameplay like high tier Void missions and Sorties, Draco is for leveling, and as such, people don't deserve to be kicked just because they get downed a few times in a match in which they came to level their gear. If push comes to shove, you can always just ignore them and let them die, in which case, they still at least get some xp in the end, instead of being kicked from a node where the sole purpose is to level and gain Focus.

This would be even worse. Some game modes are a heck of a lot harder solo, like interceptions. And I would even go as far as to say that without certain CC frames, they're impossible depending on what you're running.

The entire reason I think this is wrong is because there are far too many people with that certain mindset. That "hey, if he's unable to contribute even though he's giving it his best, screw him, he doesn't deserve to be here" *kick* and I can see this happening over, and over, and over. I can see it becoming a huge issue, very very fast. And I can see people coming on the forums complaining and pleading for it to be taken down.

Not everyone deserves a trophy for "participation".

And i shouldn't be forced to compensate for an allies lack of skill and still get the same reward.

I remember when people had standards.

And when people never dove in head first into the deep end expecting the water to do the swimming for them.

Those whiners would be spoiled brats,not desiring equality,but desiring serfs to work for them.

[Shockwave-]

On 4/6/2016 at 11:34 PM, BiancaRoughfin said:

Title says it all. One of the functions some players have been waiting for long in the game is the ability to vote for the removal of another player from your squad, the reasons may be many, harassment, anti-game behavior, uncooperative, afking/idling.

It is ok if a player needs to go afk for a wile but warns their teammates before doing so, tho a player who remains hiding in a corner the whole mission just waiting for it to be near finished than rush to grab all the loot along the way to the extraction or between waves is something i simply cant bare with and sadly its an unhappy experience i had to put up with again a few minutes ago wile doing Drako.

A Loki that did the first wave for a wile, did a few kills than jumped to the roof top of the Grineer complex where he would be untouched, remained there pushing him self against a corner, tea bagging the floor and once in a wile use Radial Disarm. We did a total of 3 waves and he would only budge when the timer for finishing off the final enemies would show up and jump down rushing from side to side collecting the loot and be back on the roof again before the timer ran out. One of my teammates was just as frustrated as me but quit the game before the end of the third wave.

I like being helpful to players but only for those i see are playing or at least trying, i will not play and give free affinity and loot for players who dont play.

 

If necessary, DE should also add a Dialog window to pop up after a mission a player was removed requesting the reason they voted for the removal so they can keep track of mischief players.

God no. There is no reason for this. There are FAR better ways.  a vote kick would be abused HORRIBLY by people that think the game can only be played one way. Like people who only want to take 2 towers in Draco to make long missions (and bail ofter 2 instead of 4 shorter missions). People would kick for playstyle, or not having a "good" frame (what you brought ivara to an Excavation!!! KICK!), etc.

 

Make people auto revive when down after 5 seconds of being dead. Then make anyone with zero revives left get ejected from the mission. No reward, no competition bonus on sortie. That way if they are dying, too much they won't get anything. If they are not being revived by their teammates that's kind of a "vote", but the person is at least dying and not holding their own. This way nobody can leech an entire sortie (although Ivara and loki still can I've seen them sit their inviso the whole sortie, but hey 

 

A vote kick is FAR FAR worse than what is happening right now, the occasional leecher is much better than being kicked at wave 19 by trolls.

 

As for a box explaining... Unless DE recorded the match that needs to be ignored anyway, that's just you spewing one sided arguments at DE without proof at all that they are "mischief players"

[Shockwave-]

4 hours ago, blaes said:

No vote kick please. It can generally be abused way too easily, and if you try to put restrictions on it, it will either become inefficient or restrictions will be useless.

 

There is a much better way to deal with afkers/trolls and such :

Give us the ability to initiate a squad split using the host migration system. This would include the possibility to invite people from the squad to move along with you.

For instance, you (A) are playing with B, C and D. For whatever reason you don't want to play with C anymore, you initiate a squad split and invite-prompt B and D to follow you. B is a friend of C and refuse, D follows you. Squad is split in 2 new squads, you and D in one and B and C in the other. Host migrations ensues as necessary for people to end this.

Other scenario : you started a high level excavation to farm credits, two other people join later on but they want to do a long run and refuse to quit after first extractor. You initiate a squad-split, don't invite anyone, the clients get a host migration and can continue their game for as long as they want and you can extract without wasting time nor loosing any (potentially rare) loot you had.

This has to be a no go for defense missions straight up. So 3 people can leave you at wave 19 with no way to extract? no thanks. Trolling would be masssive here. at least now if you don't like it you ahve to actually QUIT (and lose everything) if you could take your ball and keep going people would be doing this left and right. no public game would ever make it with all 4 people. Getting the reward is what forces players to work with each other even if they disagree. 

In addition what happens on a survivial when you are 60 min and 3 guys up and leave and you can't make it to the exit without dying (while those three can make it to the exit in their new game) how fair is that that they get to kick you out in the cold and make you lose while they win after you all put in effort. This is just as highly abusable as kick voting.

[(PSN)horridhal]

5 hours ago, (PS4)meeeone said:

Easier said then done.

"Just ignore them."

Yeah,say that on a level where a single person keeps pushing the elevator button to trap the team.

Or they take the mobile defense hack module and refuse to work with the team.

Not everyone deserves a trophy for "participation".

There's an option in your game called Abort mission.  Record the problem, ignore the person, abort the mission, report the problem to DE, and queue the mission again.

It is, literally, that simple and doing it this way prevents people from using a kick system to troll other players.

[UltimateGrr]

On ‎4‎/‎7‎/‎2016 at 9:54 PM, SortaRandom said:

AFK people are a problem.

Votekick abuse is a problem.

 

Solution: Votekick prompts only appear after a player has been AFK for a certain amount of time.

There you go. Now 99% of AFK players won't get away with zero-effort leeching, and 100% of player kicks will be because they were AFK against their team's will.

Define AFK now.  I have more than a vague idea how to set my keyboard to make me run forward for 1 second, then back pedal for 2 seconds.  Set up somewhere I can't get targeted, hit the macro, and watch cat videos on my phone until extraction time.  Boom, beat the Afk timer, now I can't be kicked.

As for player driven kick voting, it'll be abused horribly.  You have bright colors?  Kick.  Brought your Banshee?  Kick.  Oberon?  Kick.  Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

[enizer]

At first I did want something like this, but when I though of it more, I have to say no, it would do far more harm than good.

After playing the game for around 700 hours(according to steam) I have seen only THREE people that legitimately deserved to be kicked.

 

One player, decided to be a tourist in a defense map, running around pointlessly, looting, but did not fire a single shot at any point ever.

The second, pure trolling, Loki player that was an expert in teleport switching people to annoying places they never wanted to be at.(have seen sevral Valkyr players try this, but none as successfully as that one Loki player)

And the third, a self appointed expert, rank 21 player that complained of people not playing correctly, kept pointing out mistakes, never actually gave helpful advice, such as pointing out what people should actually do, then he ragequit half way through the mission, a sortie, which we then completed, on the first try, without him, and without ever having a clue what he was yelling about.

All three would have been very nice to kick early, in time to get an actually useful, helpful, replacement.

 

However, this is in 700 hours of playing, and I can only find THREE examples?

And in the other side of things, I have seen many people that tried very hard over long missions, and performed much better then at first you would have thought.

Like most recently, a player I met in the, April fools survival, he had a very fragile build, lacked an aura mod even, and if the kick mechanic had been there, he would have been kicked right away on the first minute.

I'm very glad today that kicking him was NOT possible, he turned out to be a really fun guy, and lost his final life on minute 58, of that 60 minute survival.

I count him as a friend now, and still talk to him every time I see him ingame, and this thread makes me think.. with the kick mechanic, he would not have been given any chance, the reaction WOULD have been an immediate, "oh, undergeared noob, /kick, lets get someone more useful to join"

Edited April 8, 2016 by enizer

[GrimAtrament]

On 4/7/2016 at 7:54 PM, SortaRandom said:

AFK people are a problem.

Votekick abuse is a problem.

 

Solution: Votekick prompts only appear after a player has been AFK for a certain amount of time.

There you go. Now 99% of AFK players won't get away with zero-effort leeching, and 100% of player kicks will be because they were AFK against their team's will.

that sounds healthier 

vote to kick in a blind matchmaking system is never healthy because people who dont play as the frames some players considered "good" will  never get to play that much because people will kick you for "not having the right frame" or having the wrong gun etc.

Edited April 8, 2016 by hazerddex

[shut]

9 hours ago, UltimateGrr said:

Define AFK now.  I have more than a vague idea how to set my keyboard to make me run forward for 1 second, then back pedal for 2 seconds.  Set up somewhere I can't get targeted, hit the macro, and watch cat videos on my phone until extraction time.  Boom, beat the Afk timer, now I can't be kicked.

As for player driven kick voting, it'll be abused horribly.  You have bright colors?  Kick.  Brought your Banshee?  Kick.  Oberon?  Kick.  Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Obviously the more dedicated leeches will still just have a bot move their character around for them. When this happens, that's what the Report button is for. My solution isn't perfect in this regard-- but then again, none of them are; unless you want to start interfering with regular players as well (which, IMO, is a hundred times worse than having a leecher problem).

There will always be workarounds to a fully-automated anti-AFK system. The point is that the system I described (where 1% of AFKers get away with it) is WAY better than our current system (where 100% of AFKers get away with it).

 

By the way, I think you might be misinterpreting my suggestion entirely if you think that "kick cuz ur colors are bright" or "kick cuz I don't like u" are still going to be a problem.

[blaes]

15 hours ago, Shockwave- said:

This has to be a no go for defense missions straight up. So 3 people can leave you at wave 19 with no way to extract? no thanks. Trolling would be masssive here. at least now if you don't like it you ahve to actually QUIT (and lose everything) if you could take your ball and keep going people would be doing this left and right. no public game would ever make it with all 4 people. Getting the reward is what forces players to work with each other even if they disagree. 

In addition what happens on a survivial when you are 60 min and 3 guys up and leave and you can't make it to the exit without dying (while those three can make it to the exit in their new game) how fair is that that they get to kick you out in the cold and make you lose while they win after you all put in effort. This is just as highly abusable as kick voting.

I don't agree with that. I don't see any frame unable to solo a defence wave or that can't run to extraction in a survival if it's just decently leveled/modded. If you want to go for long duration/high wave count, you can play with trusted players.

 

15 hours ago, Shockwave- said:

This is just as highly abusable as kick voting.

No it's not. There is a major difference between the two : with a kick vote, you're out and loose everything. Period. You've got no control on it. No resort.

With a squad-split, you have at least a chance of getting to extraction.

[(PSN)meeeone]

14 hours ago, (PS4)horridhal said:

There's an option in your game called Abort mission.  Record the problem, ignore the person, abort the mission, report the problem to DE, and queue the mission again.

It is, literally, that simple and doing it this way prevents people from using a kick system to troll other players.

Allow me to paint a scenario for you.(this has happened many times before.)

 

1. Playing as EV Trinity P
2. Giving energy like a boss.
3. Troll straight up stalls game.

Your solution causes me to take 5 steps.(Their troll carries over into the real world.)

And if i leave my allies lose a valued teammate and all my abilities.

Plus i lose all rewards earned.

End result : Troll wins.

My solution takes 1 step.

And a teammate who wasn't contributing anyway gets removed.

End result: Troll loses.

 

It's like owning a firearm.

You don't ever want to be forced to use it,but it's there if you need to.

[(PSN)meeeone]

1 hour ago, blaes said:

I don't agree with that. I don't see any frame unable to solo a defence wave or that can't run to extraction in a survival if it's just decently leveled/modded. If you want to go for long duration/high wave count, you can play with trusted players.

 

No it's not. There is a major difference between the two : with a kick vote, you're out and loose everything. Period. You've got no control on it. No resort.

With a squad-split, you have at least a chance of getting to extraction.

Squad split would be a 100% surefire way to mitigate trolling.

+1

[(PSN)horridhal]

Just now, (PS4)meeeone said:

Allow me to paint a scenario for you.(this has happened many times before.)

 

1. Playing as EV Trinity P
2. Giving energy like a boss.
3. Troll straight up stalls game.

Your solution causes me to take 5 steps.(Their troll carries over into the real world.)

And if i leave my allies lose a valued teammate and all my abilities.

Plus i lose all rewards earned.

End result : Troll wins.

My solution takes 1 step.

And a teammate who wasn't contributing anyway gets removed.

End result: Troll loses.

 

It's like owning a firearm.

You don't ever want to be forced to use it,but it's there if you need to.

You ignore the other solution presented, simply completing the mission on your own.

There isn't a single mission in Warframe that can't be completed solo (aside from Raids) even with a troll.  The only way completion can be prevented is through use of an Elevator to prevent further progression through the stage and, even in that case, it is entirely possible to get on the elevator prior to it closing again.

Your "solution" would also negatively impact EVERY player of this game, not just the ones you think should be kicked.  And, no, kick systems are not the same as owning a firearm in that context.  The simple fact is any kick-vote system implemented can be used to troll you and they are always abused to come extent.

[(PSN)meeeone]

3 minutes ago, (PS4)horridhal said:

You ignore the other solution presented, simply completing the mission on your own.

There isn't a single mission in Warframe that can't be completed solo (aside from Raids) even with a troll.  The only way completion can be prevented is through use of an Elevator to prevent further progression through the stage and, even in that case, it is entirely possible to get on the elevator prior to it closing again.

Your "solution" would also negatively impact EVERY player of this game, not just the ones you think should be kicked.  And, no, kick systems are not the same as owning a firearm in that context.  The simple fact is any kick-vote system implemented can be used to troll you and they are always abused to come extent.

Mass shootings happen too,but not every gun is to blame for those isolated incidents.

I have no doubt there will be abuse.

However,the tedium from starting all over again and inconveniencing 3 players per squad as to 1 player per squad are massive drawbacks.

Where there is no punishment,there is no order.

Players act like fools because of this.

 

The pros simply out weigh the cons to such an incredible degree it would be madness to NOT put it in.

 

[(PSN)horridhal]

3 minutes ago, (PS4)meeeone said:

Mass shootings happen too,but not every gun is to blame for those isolated incidents.

I have no doubt there will be abuse.

However,the tedium from starting all over again and inconveniencing 3 players per squad as to 1 player per squad are massive drawbacks.

Where there is no punishment,there is no order.

Players act like fools because of this.

 

The pros simply out weigh the cons to such an incredible degree it would be madness to NOT put it in.

 

1.  I'm not going any further on the gun comparison.  This isn't a political forum and that isn't a correct comparison by any stretch of the imagination.

2.  Any abuse that would stem from such a system is worse than dealing with the trolls.  Again, most missions take 5-10 minutes to complete even in a full cell and ALL of them are completely doable as a Solo player.

3.  We have dealt with the inconvenience for 3+ years.  In the case of vote-kick systems, the cure is worse than the disease.  Especially in a game like Warframe where missions can be complete within a matter of a few minutes.  It is quick enough to either complete a mission, or abort it and queue back up for it, that kicking another player is entirely unnecessary.

4.  Your entire basis for the comment of the pros outweighing the cons is your personal opinion.  In reality, the system would be abused to kick players for a multitude of stupid reasons that happens in EVERY game with a vote-kick system.  One of the best examples from recent memory is Payday 2.  That game was littered with lobby kicking in public matches on the basis of everything from "not having a cool enough mask," to, "I don't like your colors."  These exact same reasons would show up in Warframe and people would be negatively impacted by them.  There is absolutely no reason to inconvenience the entire population of the game in order to combat a minor number of players who happen to be trolls.  Report them with evidence and move on with your life after ignoring them.  Then you never have to deal with them again.

[(PSN)meeeone]

3 minutes ago, (PS4)horridhal said:

1.  I'm not going any further on the gun comparison.  This isn't a political forum and that isn't a correct comparison by any stretch of the imagination.

2.  Any abuse that would stem from such a system is worse than dealing with the trolls.  Again, most missions take 5-10 minutes to complete even in a full cell and ALL of them are completely doable as a Solo player.

3.  We have dealt with the inconvenience for 3+ years.  In the case of vote-kick systems, the cure is worse than the disease.  Especially in a game like Warframe where missions can be complete within a matter of a few minutes.  It is quick enough to either complete a mission, or abort it and queue back up for it, that kicking another player is entirely unnecessary.

4.  Your entire basis for the comment of the pros outweighing the cons is your personal opinion.  In reality, the system would be abused to kick players for a multitude of stupid reasons that happens in EVERY game with a vote-kick system.  One of the best examples from recent memory is Payday 2.  That game was littered with lobby kicking in public matches on the basis of everything from "not having a cool enough mask," to, "I don't like your colors."  These exact same reasons would show up in Warframe and people would be negatively impacted by them.  There is absolutely no reason to inconvenience the entire population of the game in order to combat a minor number of players who happen to be trolls.  Report them with evidence and move on with your life after ignoring them.  Then you never have to deal with them again.

That is actually a very sound argument,provided "ignoring" them in-game removes the possibility of being grouped with them ever again.

[KIREEK]

It doesn't, matchmakking doesn't check ignored players and will match you with an ignored player if you are unlucky.

Happened 3 times to me already.

[Vomitous]

49 minutes ago, (PS4)meeeone said:

That is actually a very sound argument,provided "ignoring" them in-game removes the possibility of being grouped with them ever again.

This is the only good idea to ever come out of the vote kick threads(and it comes up in every one), but it never gets implemented either.

[(PSN)horridhal]

1 hour ago, (PS4)meeeone said:

That is actually a very sound argument,provided "ignoring" them in-game removes the possibility of being grouped with them ever again.

It doesn't, but that's where the reporting of them comes up.  DE does look into reports of trolling and afk activities.  The key thing, though, is to ensure you have recorded evidence of it, then submitting a report on the person.

If you really want to do something more than band-aid fixes for trolls in single games, that's the way to accomplish it.  The more trolls banned from the game, the less you see.

Additionally, I wouldn't be opposed to a system where ignored players are removed from your matchmaking.  I've supported such suggestions in other threads before.

Edited April 8, 2016 by (PS4)horridhal

[Haxwell]

The possibility of being able to be kicked from a match would make a lot of people check their attitudes at the door. This alone would make it worth it.